[blparent] Why Blindness shouldn't work against us

[Miranda B.]

Hi Bridgit,
Wow! Thank you for this message! As an adoptive parent yourself who happens
to be Blind, and who also happens to have a spouse who is also Blind would
you mind at all if we share this message with our caseworker and state?
We have also been very blessed to have an agency and caseworkers who have
been absolutely wonderful with us! Sure, they ask questions so they can be
educated on how we do things as a parent who is Blind, but the agency and
their personell have been incredible.
Thank you again, and have a great week!

In Christ, Miranda

-----Original Message-----
From: blparent-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blparent-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Bridgit Pollpeter
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 2:11 PM
To: blparent at nfbnet.org
Subject: [blparent] Why Blindness shouldn't work against us

Jo Elizabeth,

I respect your response and agree about the safety of any child. My husband
and I have been through the ringer with multiple adoption agencies for
infant, private and foster, so I have a good idea of the involvement and
what prospective adoptive parents are asked to do. So based on my own
experience, and hearing the experiences of others such as Miranda, I see the
inconsistancies between what is asked of sighted adoptive parents and what
is often asked of blind adoptive parents; usually it involves
discrimination, and no, it's not recognized as such nor is it always
intentional, but my point is that certain questions shouldn't be asked and
certain information shouldn't be collected. The minute this is required
because of blindness, it's wrong. When all the other test have been done,
other info collected and other demands made just as any other adoptive
parent has to undergo, then extra is required because you can't "see," this
crosses the line between ensuring safety and plain discrimination. There was
a time when certain racial and ethnic groups were not allowed to adopt
period, or couldn't adopt children "outside" their own racial or ethnic
group because of long-held perceptions and stereotypes; this is now being
done with people who have disabilities especially blindness. When initially
researching adoption, my husband and I found resource after resource with
the disclaimer that people with a drug addiction history, AIDS or who are
blind automatically will have "points" taken off the criteria allowing them
to adopt and it's not likely these people will have children placed in their
home, and this was info coming directly from agencies and not just
information about adoption in general. Some things shouldn't be allowable,
right or wrong. Blindness is in no way similar to drug addiction, nor is it
similar to a disease such as AIDS. I have a family member with AIDS so I
won't go into this topic, but no one is in as immediate danger from a person
who is HIV positive, or with AIDS, as many believe, but for the sake of this
argument, blindness is not the same at all. And my biggest point is that
this attitude needs to be changed because blindness can't be an initial red
flag; we shouldn't have to prove above and beyond what any other family has
to. We're not talking about the safety of children but the discrimination of
a group of people. We've been somewhat lucky in our own adoption journey as
we've yet to meet a caseworker who wasn't willing to work with us and go to
bat for us, but the agencies we potentially may adopt from is another matter
especially when it comes to the state. No matter why the state and/or agency
ask for extra info on blind people, it's discrimination and we know
blindness has no part in the safety of raising children. And if cases like
this were simply about ensuring safety, then biological blind parents
wouldn't face the same discrimination, and yet they do.
You say, and it's very true, that anyone can make a baby and usually noone
ask  questions until it's too late, but with blind parents, we know these
questions are raised even before the birth of a child. So, in my opinion,
this goes far beyond wanting to ensure the safety of a child even if that's
the reasoning behind the problem. What you say is true and I completely
agree with that most children in the foster-care system already come from
"bad" homes, and their safety must be paramount, however, a person's
blindness should play no part in the equation as long as said parent has
demonstrated their ability along with others going through the same process.
If I "pass" all the criteria necessary, that should be enough; I've
obviously already proved my ability to care for a child, and yet time after
time, we see this happen to blind parents. More is required, and doubts are
allowed to be used as criteria working against us even though many have
already exhibited their ability to care for kids through the classes and
studies required of others.
Wrong is wrong no matter the reasoning behind it.

Sincerely,
Bridgit Kuenning-Pollpeter
Read my blog at:
http://blogs.livewellnebraska.com/author/bpollpeter/
 
"History is not what happened; history is what was written down."
The Expected One- Kathleen McGowan

Message: 10
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 13:33:55 -0700
From: "Jo Elizabeth Pinto" <jopinto at msn.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Parents Mailing List" <blparent at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [blparent] Keeping young children safe with a visual
	impairment
Message-ID: <SNT116-DS18AE4C723E5928E3A3C786AC930 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original

Hi.  I don't mean to have the dissenting voice, as I agree with most of what
you said, Bridgit.  Frankly, it isn't fair that blind people have to prove
themselves, or that they are questioned more than others when it comes to
their ability to parent.  You're right about that.  But there are two things
you might want to consider in the particular case of the foster system.

The first and most important consideration is that the state has a
responsibility to ensure the well-being of the children in its care.
Those
children have already been through too much in their lives to take risks

with their safety.  I'm not saying that Amanda and her husband wouldn't make
good foster parents, by any stretch of the imagination.  I've never met them
or spoken with them personally.  But I believe the state has not only the
right but the duty to ask questions of any couple, blind or otherwise, until
the case workers are satisfied that children will be safe in a particular
home.  Is it fair?  Maybe not.  But it wouldn't be fair to the children to
put them in homes that hadn't been very thoroughly checked out and deemed
safe and nurturing.  Foster parents or prospective parents have to prove a
lot more than biological parents do, blind or sighted, because the fact is
that anybody (or nearly anybody) can go out and make a baby, and they're not
usually questioned till something bad happens.  The system is designed to
try to prevent bad things from happening to the kids in state custody.

The second consideration goes along with the first, and that is the fact

that everybody is questioned incessantly and examined under a microscope

when it comes to the process of applying for foster children.  I know it

because my brother and his partner took on the challenge and have been
fostering a baby from the time he was seven months old, till now when he

just turned two.  Neither one of the parents are disabled, so that didn't
come under scrutiny, but they had to provide a lot of details about their
finances, their extended families, and how they would handle an astronomical
number of situations that might come up.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to the safety and
well-being of the kids the state has taken into its charge, if the case
workers feel they have to ask more questions than usual of a disabled
couple, so be it.  Give the best possible answers, because more than
anything else, the kids need to be looked after.  Is it fair?  No.  But it
beats the way things used to be, when homes weren't checked out well enough.

I have a very close friend who was raped two different times in bad foster
homes, once when she was only seven, and again as a teenager.  I realize I
might be taking an unpopular stance, and again, I mean nothing at all
against Amanda and her husband.  But I think, in the big picture, questions
aren't necessarily a bad thing.  They can make you think and plan, and know
ahead of time how you'll handle things.

Jo Elizabeth


_______________________________________________
blparent mailing list
blparent at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blparent_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blparent:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blparent_nfbnet.org/knownoflove%40gmail.co
m